Outcomes of 6.5‐mm Hydrophilic Implants and Long Implants Placed with Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very few controlled studies have compared short and long implants placed with appropriate sinus floor elevation techniques. PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of 6.5-mm hydrophilic implants placed with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants placed with lateral sinus floor elevation in patients with a severely atrophic posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with a residual bone height of 4-5 mm were randomized to receive one of the two above-mentioned treatments. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The implant survival rate, peri-implant bone level, and periapical endosinus bone gain were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 80 inserted implants, one in the long implant group failed because of abscess formation. The peri-implant bone level change (0.35 ± 0.60 mm vs 0.40 ± 0.71 mm) was not significantly different between the two groups. The endosinus bone gain was 2.94 ± 0.81 mm and 10.19 ± 0.95 mm in the short and long implant groups, respectively. No serious adverse events related to implant surgery were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the placement of 6.5-mm short implants with OSFE is an effective alternative for the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".